City Services Benchmarking: Public Transportation CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Office of the Controller City Services Auditor Peg Stevenson | Joe Lapka 06.03.2014 Performance Measurement Mandate 2 Appendix F, Section 101 of the City Charter The Controller shall… • Monitor the level and effectiveness of services provided to the people of San Francisco, • Review performance and cost benchmarks, and • Conduct comparisons of the cost and performance of City government with other cities, counties, and public agencies that perform similar functions Prescribed Service Areas (areas covered by previous benchmarking reports) Condition of urban environment Transportation Human resources Public health & human services Criminal justice City management Parks, cultural & recreational facilities Fire and paramedic services Public works March 2014 Benchmarking Report – Public Transportation 3 Purpose Compare the cost and performance of directly-operated light rail, bus, and trolleybus service provided by SFMTA with similar services in metropolitan areas Peer Selection Methodology • Followed methodology outlined in Transit Cooperative Research Program Report 141 – A Methodology for Performance Measurement and Peer Comparison in the Public Transportation Industry • Designed to provide a robust, practical, and transparent process for selecting peer agencies based on uniformly defined and readily available data • Underwent multiple rounds of review and testing by numerous transit agencies, regional transportation authorities, and state departments of transportation Peer Screening and Grouping Factors 4 Screening Factors • Rail operator (yes/no) • Rail operator only (yes/no) • Heavy-rail operator (yes/no) Peer-grouping Factors • Urban area population • Population growth rate • Total annual vehicle miles operated • Percent low-income population • Annual operating budget • Annual roadway delay per traveler • Population density • Freeway lane miles per capita • Service area type • Percent service demand-responsive • State capital (yes/no) • Percent service purchased • Percent college students • Distance from target agency Peer Group Characteristics 5 Percentage of Passenger Trips Carried by Mode of Transportation Dallas Bus Denver Trolleybus Houston Minneapolis Other Bus Pittsburgh Light Rail/Street Car Portland Sacramento Cable Car San Diego Commuter Rail San Francisco San Jose Other Rail Seattle Vanpool 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Annual System Wide Revenue Hours Hours Revenue Wide Annual System 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6 Peer Group Characteristics Group Peer Seattle Houston Denver San Francisco Dallas Portland Pittsburgh Minneapolis San Diego (millions) San Jose Sacramento System Wide Operating Expenditures Expenditures Wide Operating System $250 $500 $750 $0 San Francisco Dallas Seattle Denver Houston Portland Pittsburgh San Jose Minneapolis (millions) San Diego Sacramento Performance Measures Utilized 7 Cost-efficiency Maintenance Administration • Operating costs per revenue hour • Total maintenance expenditures • Operating costs per revenue mile • Maintenance expenses per revenue mile • Revenue miles between vehicle failures Cost-effectiveness Service Quality • Operating costs per boarding • Average system speed • Farebox recovery ratio • Route miles per square mile of service area • Subsidy per boarding • Avg. # of vehicles in operation during weekday midday service Productivity Service Utilization • Boardings per revenue mile • Number of boardings • Boardings per FTE Resource Utilization Other Measures • Revenue hours per FTE • Fares • Avg. in-use energy efficiency & fuel economy • Total operating costs • Boardings per capita Transit Investment • Average fleet age Operating Costs by Mode of Transportation 8 in millions of dollars Light Rail Bus Trolleybus $175 $400 $175 $150 $350 $150 $125 $300 $125 $250 $100 $100 $200 $75 $75 $150 $50 $50 $100 $25 $50 $25 $0 $0 $0 Dallas Dallas Seattle Seattle Denver Denver San Jose San Jose San Houston Houston Portland Portland San Diego San San Diego San Pittsburgh Pittsburgh Sacramento Sacramento Minneapolis Minneapolis San Francisco San San Francisco San Francisco San Differences among light rail systems may partially account for the wide variation in operating costs across agencies Avg. Number of Vehicles in Operation in Weekday Midday Service 9 Light Rail Bus Trolleybus 200 600 200 500 150 150 400 100 300 100 200 50 50 100 0 0 0 Dallas Dallas Denver Seattle Seattle Denver San Jose San Houston Portland San Jose San Houston Portland San DiegoSan Pittsburgh San Diego San Pittsburgh Sacramento Minneapolis Sacramento Minneapolis San Francisco San San Francisco San San Francisco San During non-commute hours on a typical weekday, the SFMTA operates between 3 and 14 times the number of light rail vehicles than its peers, and it operates nearly double the number of trolleybuses Operating Costs vs. Vehicles in Operation 10 $200 San Francisco $150 Dallas (millions) $100 Portland San Jose Denver Pittsburgh $50 San Diego Sacramento Minneapolis Operating Costs Costs Operating $0 Houston 0 30 60 90 120 150 Avg. Weekday Midday No. of Vehicles in Operation The data demonstrate a clear tend of increasing costs with an increase in the number of vehicles in operation Route Miles Per Square Mile of Service Area 11 Light Rail Bus Trolleybus The number of route miles per square mile of service area reflects the overall availability of transit service The SFMTA stands apart from its peers in the amount of coverage it provides The SFMTA’s dense transit network serves many neighborhoods that would otherwise be inaccessible due to a hilly topography Bus Fares During Peak Periods of Operation 12 A review of published transit fares reveals that fares in San Francisco are equal to or lower than those in virtually all of the peer cities Reduced Fares Full Agency Persons w/ Medicare Fare Youth Seniors Disabilities Card Holders Pittsburgh1 $3.25 $1.60 $0.00 $1.25 NA Dallas $2.50 $1.25 $1.25 $1.25 $1.25 Portland $2.50 $1.65 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 Sacramento $2.50 $1.25 $1.25 $1.25 $1.25 Seattle $2.50 $1.25 $0.75 $0.75 $0.75 Denver $2.25 $1.10 $1.10 $1.10 $1.10 San Diego $2.25 NA $1.10 $1.10 $1.10 Minneapolis $2.25 $2.25 $2.25 $0.75 $2.25 San Francisco $2.00 $0.75 $0.75 $0.75 $0.75 San Jose $2.00 $1.75 $1.00 $1.00 NA Houston1 $1.25 $0.60 $0.60 $0.60 $0.60 Note: 1. Fares are distance based – values shown here are representative only. Boardings Per Capita 13 120 100 Light Rail With 100% of the City’s residential 80 areas within a quarter mile of a bus 60 stop and comparatively lower fares, 40 20 Muni is an attractive choice for 0 transportation Dallas Denver San Jose Houston Portland San Diego The more than 1,000 vehicles in the Pittsburgh Sacramento Minneapolis SFMTA’s fleet support an average of San Francisco 700,000 boardings each weekday 120 100 Bus 80 60 40 20 0 Dallas Seattle Denver San Jose Houston Portland San Diego Pittsburgh Sacramento Minneapolis San Francisco Average System Speed 14 The amount of time a bus takes to traverse its route is influenced by the number of passengers that are served Each time the bus stops to board or alight passengers, it experiences a delay, which reduces the average speed of the bus. This effect likely contributes to the SFMTA’s lower average speeds Houston Pittsburgh 15 Denver Seattle Bus Dallas Portland The data show a high San Jose Minneapolis Sacramento correlation between the 10 San Diego number of boardings per San Francisco 5 revenue mile and average Average System Speed System Average bus speed 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Boardings Per Revenue Mile Vehicle Failures Defined 15 Major Mechanical System Failure A failure of some mechanical element of the revenue vehicle that prevents the vehicle from completing a scheduled revenue trip or from starting the next scheduled revenue trip because actual movement is limited or because of safety concerns Minor/Other Mechanical System Failures A failure of some other mechanical element of the revenue vehicle that, because of local agency policy, prevents the revenue vehicle from completing a scheduled revenue trip or from starting the next scheduled revenue trip even though the vehicle is physically able to continue in revenue service Revenue Miles Between Total Vehicle Failures 16 Light Rail Bus Trolleybus A “vehicle failure” is considered to be a “breakdown of either a major or minor element of the…vehicle's mechanical system.” This measure is often used as a general indicator of delays that arise due to equipment problems. Compared to its peers, the SFMTA experiences a higher frequency of light rail vehicle and bus failures. Light Rail Vehicle Failures by Failure Type (2011) 17 Location Major Minor/Other Revenue Revenue Miles Revenue Miles Mechanical Mechanical Miles Between Major Between Total Failures Failures Failures ↑ Failures San Francisco 2,329 7,136 5,838,027 2,507 617 Pittsburgh 184 282 1,828,316 9,937 3,923 Minneapolis 104 87 2,054,607 19,756 10,757 Dallas 235 162 6,897,909 29,353 17,375 Portland 266 116 7,808,150 29,354 20,440 Sacramento 98 79 3,696,693 37,721 20,885 San Jose 55 7 2,953,079 53,692 47,630 Denver 92 295 8,455,301 91,905 21,848 Houston 8 28 901,218 112,652 25,034 San Diego 23 623 7,518,512 326,892 11,639 City Services Benchmarking: Public Transportation CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Office of the Controller City Services Auditor Peg Stevenson | Joe Lapka 06.03.2014 .